Puligny-Montrachet 2005, Etienne Sauzet

Blind-tasted by Burgoblog contributors Tom and Rameet. Clear lemon gold with legs. Nose, citrus. Hints of oak. Futs de chene. Not much on the nose. Rice. She thinks its corked but its not because you are getting fruit. I got some pear on the nose. Conference pear. Not the sweet Williams pear. Slightly crunchy pear. Conference pear, as you say. Attack. Citrus. Lemon finish. Some minerality. Not a lot. Village wine vinified in oak (he reaches for the pate). Do you think it is like preserved lemons? That you get in Middle Eastern lemons? No, I don't. Its not your standard lemon juice. Medium length. A little bit woody. So you are picking up the oak. Not vinified in 100% new oak. Some plank. Not high acid. No, I said medium. Thats why its 2008. Still a young wine, fruit driven. Does that make it 2009? No, its not flabby. We bought some 09 today. Yes dear, we did. Overall, pleasant, drinkable, a village wine. Either 08 or 09. Rameet would score it at 1.5 glasses out of a bottle. Tom prefers this one to the Pouilly-Fuisse because I've already had two glasses. Chuckle, chuckle. Meursault is famous for its minerality and I'm not getting any. Is it more fruit driven or mineral driven? Don't you smell stones. Yes. That's mineral. On the nose now, a bit of dairy? Definitely a village wine. I'm not getting super fruits. What are the other villages? I don't think it is south of here (Puligny). Not a Maconnais. Somewhere around these parts. Not nice enough to be Puligny? We are going to sound like idiots. Kermit and another muppet. The finish is definitely acidity and citrus. Not much richness. Its not that old. 08/09 I will stick with that. Not Meursault. I'm going for 04.


Popular Posts